GRECIAX CONFEDERACY UNDER ATHENS. 339 Thucydides, to infer that no treaty ^as concluded, we should still be obliged also to infer, from his positive averments, that a state This state of relations, between the Asiatic Greeks and the Persian comt under the Athenian empire, authenticated by Thucydides, enables us to ex- plain a passage of Herodotus, on which also both Manso and Dahlmann have dwelt (p. 94) with rather more apparent plausibility, as proving their view of the case. Herodotus, after describing the reaiTangement and remeasurement of the territories of the Ionic cities by the satrap Artapher- nes (about 493 B.C., after the suppression of the Ionic revolt), proceeds to state that he assessed the tribute of each with reference to this new meas- urement, and that the assessment remained unchanged until his own (Herodotus's) time, — /cat ra^ x'^P'^C c<peuv (lerpriaa^ Karu 'izapaauyya^ . . . , (popovc era^e eKuaroKji, o! Kara. xi-'PV'^ 6caTE?,€0vai exovreg ek tovtov tov Xpovov aiel sti kol k^ kul, ug irux'^Tjaav e^ 'ApTa(pipv£OC' erax'&'n'^o.v 6e ax^^ov Karu tu avra tu Kal irpuTepov elxov (vi, 42). Now Dahlmann and Manso contend that Herodotus here aflBrms the ti-ibute of the Ionic cities to Persia to have been continuously and regularly paid, down to bis own time. But in my judgment this is a mistake : Herodotus speaks, not about the payment, hut about the assessment: and these were two very different things, as Thucydides clearly intimates in the passage which I have cited above. The assessment of all the Ionic cities in the Persian king's books remained unaltered all through the Athenian empire ; but the payment was not enforced until immediately before 412 B.C., when the Athenians were supposed to be too weak to hinder it. It is evident by the account of the general Persian revenues, throughout all the satrapies, which we find in the third book of Herodotus, that he had access to official accounts of the Per- sian finances, or at least to Greek secretaries who knew those accounts. He ■would be told, that these assessments remained unchanged from the time of Artaphemes downward : whether they were realized or not was anothei question, which the '• books " would probably not answer, and which he might or might not know. The passages above cited from Thucydides appear to me to afford posi- tive proof that the Greek cities on the Asiatic coast — not those in the inte- rior, as we may see by the case of Magnesia given to Themistokles — paid no tribute to Persia during the continuance of the Athenian empire. But if tljere were no such positive proof, I should still maintain the same opin- ion. For if these Greeks went on paying tribute, what is meant by the phrases, of their having " revolted from Persia," of their " having been liberated from the king," (oi uTroaTavreg paaikeug EXXnveg — oi uTrd 'luvlaf Kal 'EXXijoTiOVTOv rjirj a^earriKoreg cnrb (iaaikiug — oaot utzo paaiXeug veuarl ^Xev&ipuvTo, Thucyd. i, 18, 89, 95?) So much respecting the payment of tribute. As to the other point, — that between 477 and 412 B.C., no Persian ships were tolerated along the coast of Ionia, which coast, though claimed by the Persian king, was not
